7/28/2019 USCADC 2013-03-11 - Hassan v FEC - Per Curiam ORDER

1/2

United States Court of AppealsFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 12-5335 September Term, 2012

1:11-cv-02189-EGS

Filed On: March 11, 2013

Abdul Karim Hassan,

Appellant

v.

Federal Election Commission,

Appellee

BEFORE: Henderson, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motion to expedite and the opposition thereto; themotion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply; and the motionfor summary reversal, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motionfor summary reversal be denied. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as towarrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297(D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court correctly determined that appellantlacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Presidential Election CampaignFund Act, 26 U.S.C. 9001 et seq., (Fund Act), to the extent it renders naturalizedcitizens ineligible for campaign funding. See Arizona Christian School Tuition Org. v.Winn, 131 S. Ct. 1436, 1442 (2011) (and cases cited therein) (to establish standingplaintiff must show injury-in-fact, causal connection between injury and challengedconduct, and likelihood that a favorable decision will redress injury). Because appellantlacked standing to bring a Fund Act claim, the district court properly declined toconvene a three-judge court. Wertheimer v. FEC, 268 F.3d 1070, (D.C. Cir. 2001). Tothe extent appellant maintains that Article II, Section I, clause 5 of the United StatesConstitution has been implicitly repealed to the extent it bars naturalized citizens suchas himself from holding the office of President, appellant failed to state a claim for relief.

Appellant cites no authority to support his contention that a constitutional provision canbe implicitly repealed, nor has he shown the natural-born citizen requirement is inirreconcilable conflict with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, or that those

USCA Case #12-5335 Document #1424544 Filed: 03/11/2013 Page 1 of 2

7/28/2019 USCADC 2013-03-11 - Hassan v FEC - Per Curiam ORDER

2/2

United States Court of AppealsFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 12-5335 September Term, 2012

amendments cover[ ] the whole subject of the requirement and are clearly intendedas a substitute. Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 273 (2003). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to expedite be dismissed as moot.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerkis directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolutionof any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Page 2

USCA Case #12-5335 Document #1424544 Filed: 03/11/2013 Page 2 of 2